Re: 7.1/6.4 Release Status...
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 02:52:30PM -0500, Ken Smith wrote: > > Sorry, as usual I've not been very good about status updates... > > As far as the 7.1-REL process goes two issues that got classified as > show-stoppers got worked out right around the time work on a security > advisory came along. Progress on both releases got unblocked at the > same time so some work has been done with 7.1 (some folks have already > noticed the branch was done) but we focused a bit more on finishing 6.4. > We expect to get the 7.1-RC1 builds started Sunday. If testing doesn't > turn up any more show-stoppers 7.1-RC2 will be done about 1.5 weeks > after RC1, and 7.1-REL will be done about 1.5 weeks after RC2. > > 6.4-RELEASE is done. Details here: > > http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.4R/announce.html > > Thanks... Hello, previous releases used to have progress report pages in the FreeBSD main site that were really useful and informative, e.g.: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/todo.html Are there any such pages for 7.1 and 6.4? Thank you for your efforts, Panagiotis -- Panagiotis J. ChristiasNetwork Management Center [EMAIL PROTECTED]National Technical Univ. of Athens, GREECE ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: gmirror and gstripe
On Wed, November 19, 2008 10:39 am, Bartosz Stec wrote: > Nenhum_de_Nos pisze: >> hail, >> >> I have an old AthlonXP 1700+ running 7-STABLE: >> >> FreeBSD xxx 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #1: Thu Nov 13 >> 23:54:59 >> BRT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/xxx i386 >> >> where I have two 750GB Seagate SATA Disks. They are divided as two >> slices, >> around the first 120GB are gathered in gmirror, and what left is in >> gstripe. so that's whats going on. if the machine locks, and fsck comes >> to >> make its job, the box just gets slower and slower till I have to reset >> it >> the hard way. to make it not lock after just 5 minutes I have to boot >> and >> umount the "arrays", and then run fsck_ufs on them. so this way I can >> have >> the box running again. >> > Did you mean that machine slows down while doing background fsck? If > yes, problem is probably related to snapshot which is created, and > background fsck is done on snapshot. > >> as I can't count on no power outage till the end of days, what can I do >> ? >> >> > You may just disable background fsck and do it manually in single user > mode in that case just by typing fsck -y. >> i just recompiled stable to make it stop this, but no go here ... >> >> this is an AthlonXP as said, running on EPoX kt600 based board, sata I >> is >> from via southbridge and 1GB of RAM. just another 40GB disk to the >> system. >> >> thanks, >> >> matheus >> > If I am correct, your problem is old known and mksnap_ffs related. > Jeremy Chadwick wrote a lot about it: > http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/Commonly_reported_issues > > Good luck. > > -- > Bartosz Stec some news: my router+file server got stuck with a usb 2.5" hdd enclosure and I had to hard reboot. when it got uo again, I got this: fsync: giving up on dirty 0xc43ec678: tag devfs, type VCHR usecount 1, writecount 0, refcount 678 mountedhere 0xc4388b00 flags () v_object 0xc14291f0 ref 0 pages 2700 lock type devfs: EXCL (count 1) by thread 0xc45e9220 (pid 1719) dev mirror/mirror0 but afaik, the files are there. so I question, is it yet safe to use gmirror for my files integrity sake ? is there anything I may be doing wrong to cause this ? what can I help to help fix this ? thanks, matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC ZFS: when?
Wes Morgan wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Dillon Kass wrote: I'm very excited and can't wait! I have this clone I need to promote but I'm encountering this bug http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6738349 Hopefully it gets mfc before the diff between the real fs and the clone becomes so large that my pool fills up :-) I should have a few months before that happens though. Is it possible you could boot a -current system and promote the clone without upgrading your pools/filesystems, then reboot to -stable? The promotion is not backwards compatible. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC ZFS: when?
Andrew Snow wrote: The problem appears to be that the latest ZFS commit in 8-CURRENT relies on too many other new features that aren't in 7.1. After 7.1 is released, then perhaps ZFS and the other new code it requires can be moved into 7-STABLE? That is certainly the intention, but I trust that everyone will appreciate the need to watch and wait before dumping an enormous and potentially risky filesystem change into the laps of all 7-STABLE users. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC ZFS: when?
2008/11/21 Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Once no new bugs appear any more, and old one are fixed. > > > That's a pretty cop-out answer. Considering the the version of ZFS in 7.x > has significant issues and the ZFS patches havn't shown any propensity to > affect non-ZFS systems when ZFS is not running or loaded, the benefit of > importing the new code seems to outweigh any caution you might feel. I can > understand an answer such as "not in 7.1, but immediately after" ... given > the standards we apply to release branches ... but a vague "when no bugs > seem to appear" applies much less to a system like ZFS (still in flux) than, > say, the new USB stack. Pawel will probably not say no to any offers of help by people who would like to help port and maintain the FreeBSD-7 ZFS support. Adrian ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Random hangs with 7.1-PRE
Richard Tector wrote: I'm not discounting hardware here, but I'm having problems with a previously stable amd64 system (dmesg attached) now running: FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #1: Wed Nov 26 00:10:41 GMT 2008 and previously running a RELENG_7 from around Oct 15th which also exhibited the problem. The system appears to hang with SSH terminals eventually timing out, and no other services being available. The odd thing is, when I go to the console, I can switch between terminals with Alt-F2, etc, but can not type anything. Pressing the power button a couple of times gives an acpi not ready message, so it doesn't appear the system has completely hung. The system is in a cool room and under little load running basic services: samba, postgres, dhcp, etc. Never seen problems with the machine previously. Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on narrowing down the cause? See the developers handbook chapter on kernel debugging for full instructions on how to gather the necessary information to proceed. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
7.1/6.4 Release Status...
Sorry, as usual I've not been very good about status updates... As far as the 7.1-REL process goes two issues that got classified as show-stoppers got worked out right around the time work on a security advisory came along. Progress on both releases got unblocked at the same time so some work has been done with 7.1 (some folks have already noticed the branch was done) but we focused a bit more on finishing 6.4. We expect to get the 7.1-RC1 builds started Sunday. If testing doesn't turn up any more show-stoppers 7.1-RC2 will be done about 1.5 weeks after RC1, and 7.1-REL will be done about 1.5 weeks after RC2. 6.4-RELEASE is done. Details here: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.4R/announce.html Thanks... -- Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | [EMAIL PROTECTED] there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel | signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: MFC ZFS: when?
On 22.11.2008, at 00:58, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: In several of the recent ZFS posts, multiple people have asked when this will be MFC'd to 7.x. This query has been studiously ignored as other chatter about whatever ZFS issue is discussed. So in a post with no other bug report or discussion content to distract us, when is it intended that ZFS be MFC'd to 7.x? While I'd seconded update info a month ago, I think it is no more inappropriate. Work is actively ongoing (if you follow -current) and now it's time to take out that old (or new) box and help debugging all possible scenarios on CURRENT before crying after the next kmap_too_small or panic. If I understand correctly, the issues arising with large de/allocations of memory in kernel space is a tricky buisiness which needs careful and thorough testing, tuning and thinking... Afaik, even solaris hasn't ironed out all the potential problems, e.g. if you read this article and the linked bugdatabase entries...: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Limiting_the_ARC_Cache So let's really rather help (if possible) with a -current install, or at least not take time with tedious requests :) Sincere regards to PJD and the whole development core team, as FreeBSD is really keeping up with the fast tech hype - but with style. Lorenzo ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ichwd problem: watchdog doesn't "bark"
on 28/11/2008 17:27 Mike Tancsa said the following: > At 09:28 AM 11/28/2008, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> Then I kill -9 watchdogd. >> "timer reloded" messages are no longer produced. >> And there are no other messages. >> >> But nothing happens for many minutes that I waited. > > Is the watchdog disabled in the BIOS by chance ? There is no such setting there, -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ichwd problem: watchdog doesn't "bark"
At 09:28 AM 11/28/2008, Andriy Gapon wrote: Then I kill -9 watchdogd. "timer reloded" messages are no longer produced. And there are no other messages. But nothing happens for many minutes that I waited. Is the watchdog disabled in the BIOS by chance ? ---Mike ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
ichwd problem: watchdog doesn't "bark"
uname: FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE r185311 amd64 dmesg: ichwd0: on isa0 ichwd0: Intel ICH9R watchdog timer (ICH9 or equivalent) ichwd0: timer disabled pciconf: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:0:31:0: class=0x060100 card=0x50448086 chip=0x29168086 rev=0x02 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Intel Corporation' device = '82801IR (ICH9R) LPC Interface Controller' class = bridge subclass = PCI-ISA When I start watchdogd I see the following messages: timer enabled timeout set to 28 ticks and then a flow of messages: timer reloaded Then I kill -9 watchdogd. "timer reloded" messages are no longer produced. And there are no other messages. But nothing happens for many minutes that I waited. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: usb keyboard dying at loader prompt
I did more testing and it seems that our loader does have something to do with the problem. If I boot to memtest86 the keyboard keeps working. If I pause boot menu, wait for many minutes, the keyboard still works. If I escape to loader prompt, this when the keyboard stops working after a few seconds. Not sure how to explain this. I think I've seen some changes to reduce memory usage of loader, I will try them to see if that would make any difference for my situation. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
inconsistent addressing of smb slaves
on 21/11/2008 19:15 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 21/11/2008 18:48 Gavin Atkinson said the following: >> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 17:16 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote: >>> As Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> Now: (0x44 << 1) & 0xff == (0xc4 << 1) & 0xff = 0x88 (looks like RTC) (0x50 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd0 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa0 (well known SPD addr) (0x52 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd2 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa4 (well known SPD addr) (0x80 << 1) & 0xff = 0x0 (mentioned above "global address") (0x88 << 1) & 0xff == MIN_I2C_ADDR = 0x10 (something weird) I think that this demonstrates that FreeBSD smb driver expects slave addresses in range 0x0-0x7f. >>> Well, the machine I've been writing smbmsg(8) on has been a Sun E450 I >>> don't have access to any longer, so I cannot post a live example >>> output. However, I could swear the output did make sense on that >>> machine, i. e. the typical 0xa0 etc. addresses were populated there. >>> Basically, the 0xa0 example you can find in the EXAMPLES section of >>> the man page has been tailored after an actual session transcript made >>> on said Sun E450. (I'm not completely sure about the 0x70 example >>> anymore, this could be a hypothetical one.) >>> >>> So could that be a backend driver issue, so various backend drivers >>> use different addressing formats? *shudder* >> I believe this is the case, yes. See for example, PR kern/100513. It >> appears that some frivers treat the adfdress one way, and others treat >> it the other. > > Darn it! Thank you! > I also started to have doubts and almost came to conclusion that this is > 6.X vs 7.X issue, because on my 6.X machine everything worked > reasonably. But I now see that my 6.X machine has nfsmb and 7.X machines > have ichsmb. > > PR link for convenience: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=100513 > > We have to settle to one addressing scheme or the other. I did some searching through code and it seems that only ichsmb is a black sheep, all others seem to be consistent with each other. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
